Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout10-24-2012MEDINA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 24, 2012 7:00 P.M. SPECIAL MEETING CITY HALL (2052 County Road 24) 1. Call Special Meeting to Order 2. Public Comments on items not on the agenda 3. Public Hearing — Jacob Moser — Requests Variances to construct a new home in the Urban Residential (UR) zoning district along Ardmore Avenue (PID 18-118-23-24-0154). 4. Adjourn POSTED IN CITY HALL October 19, 2012 NORTHWEST ASSOCIATED CONSULTANTS, INC. 4800 Olson Memorial Highway, Suite 202, Golden Valley, M N 55422 Telephone: 763.231 .2555 Facsimile: 763.231 .2561 planners@nacplanning.corr PLANNING REPORT TO: Medina Planning Commission Scott Johnson, City Administrator FROM: Nate Sparks, Consulting Planner DATE: October 3, 2012 RE: Moser Variance Request FILE NO: L-12-089 INTRODUCTION Jacob Moser has made a request for a variance from the front yard, wetland buffer, and lake setbacks to construct a house on an unaddressed property on Ardmore Avenue. The applicant is proposing to construct a 2.5 story house that is proposed to be 15 feet from the right-of-way of Ardmore Avenue, 15 feet from the undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way, 55 feet from Lake Ardmore, and 10 feet from the Upland Wetland Zone buffer. Additionally, this parcel requires a variance pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. le (2) (e) regarding non- conforming lots of record within the Shoreland District. ANALYSIS Zoning Ordinance/Comprehensive Plan The site is zoned UR, Urban Residential and is guided for a Medium Density Residential land use in the Comprehensive Plan. The site is also located in the Lake Admore Shoreland District, which is classified as a Recreational Development lake. Site The site is an unaddressed parcel of land located on Lake Ardmore. The parcel is north of the undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way and across the street from 2945 Ardmore Avenue, which is located at the intersection of Ardmore and Balsam Street. Originally the parcel was three platted lots, as the legal description is Lots 9, 10, and 11 of Block 21. The parcel was combined into one and compares to the Urban Residential & Shoreland District standards thusly: Standard Requirement Moser Parcel UR/Riparian Lot Area 9,000 sq. ft./ 20,000 sq. ft. 18,520 sq. ft. Width at ROW Setback 60 feet 120 feet Width at Lake Setback 75 feet 125 feet Lot Depth 100 feet 105 feet Moser Variance Page 1 Adjacent to this property, the elevation at the edge of the improved road surface is 968 feet. This drops to 966 at the front lot line and to 964 at the 30 foot line. About 60 feet into the property, the 500 year floodplain elevation of 962.7 is reached. The 100 year floodplain is 962.3. The Ordinary High Water mark for Lake Ardmore is 959.8 and is located about 115 feet from the center of the front property line. Adjacent to Lake Ardmore there is a wetland area that is delineated on the survey provided by the applicant. This wetland area is about 30 feet in width along the lake. The wetland is an "Other Preserve" designation on the Wetland Management Classification Map, meaning there must be an average 35 foot wide buffer with a minimum of 25 feet. Proposed Construction Mr. Moser is proposing to construct a two-story walk out house on the parcel. The footprint of the proposed house, porch, and garage is 1,859 square feet. The applicant is seeking variances for setbacks to the Ardmore Avenue right-of-way, undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way, Lake Ardmore, and the Upland Buffer Zone. Standard Required Proposed Ardmore Avenue ROW 30 15 Palm Street ROW 30 15 Lake 75 55 Upland Buffer Zone Setback 15 10 Impervious Surface Max 25.00% 13.41% Structure Height 2.5 stories / 30 feet 2 stories / 26.8 The proposed location of the house is towards the southern side of the property. There are drainage concerns on the northern property line as the water drains from Pine Street to Lake Ardmore. This location, and the proposed grading plan, allows for the drainage way to be improved. In order to accommodate the construction of the house, the applicant is proposing to raise the elevation of the property near the right-of-way. The applicant estimates between 400 and 500 cubic yards of fill will be needed. This will allow for the garage to be placed above the grade of the road allowing for a 4% driveway grade. The applicant states that by placing the house on grade, the driveway would have a negative grade. The City Engineer has reviewed this proposal and finds that this is generally acceptable from a drainage standpoint, and the Public Works Superintendent believes that raising the grade will help to improve the drainage patterns around the home and towards Lake Ardmore. As the parcel is less than 20,000 square feet in area, it requires a variance pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes 462.357 Subd. le (2) (e) regarding non -conforming lots of record within the Shoreland District. This section states that a non -conforming conforming lot of record may be allowed as a building site without variances from the lot size requirements, provided that all structure setback provisions are met. Since this request requires variances from the setback provisions, a variance from the minimum lot size must also be considered. Moser Variance Page 2 Tree Preservation There are a total of 36 significant trees on the site. For this type of development, there is an allowance for removal of 20% which is 7 trees. The applicant is proposing to remove 10 trees, which would be over the allowed removal. Thus, tree replacement is required. The average size of tree being removed is 19 inches in diameter. Therefore, the applicant must replace the equivalent of three 19 inch trees, which is 57 inches in total. The applicant shall be required to present a tree replacement plan pursuant to the requirements of Section 828.41 and provide the requisite security as a condition of any approval and prior to the issuance of any building permit. Wetlands As mentioned, there is a delineated wetland adjacent to Lake Ardmore. The applicant is required by Section 828.43 to provide a 35 foot wide average buffer to the wetland. This buffer is not allowed to be less than 25 feet in width. There is a required setback to the Upland Buffer Zone established by this average buffer of 15 feet. The applicant is proposing a setback of 10 feet. The applicant is required to provide Upland Buffer Zone Markers, easements over the Upland Buffer Zone, and a vegetation plan as a condition of any approval and prior to the issuance of any building permit. This information could be created in consort with the Tree Replacement Plan mentioned above. In exchange for the reduced setback to the Upland Buffer Zone, the applicant will need to exceed City standards found in this Section. At minimum, this may be accomplished by placing a standard drainage and utility easement along the northern property line and by providing an extra easement over the actual wetland and lake portions of the property. Staff also recommends a condition that drainage from the site be designed so that runoff is directed towards the wider portions of the Upland Buffers. Building Height The proposed house is a 2 story walkout and 26.8 feet in height. The maximum standards for the UR District are 2.5 stories and 30 feet in height. Driveway The applicant is proposing a side loaded garage and bringing a driveway through a portion of the undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way. The setback from the Ardmore Avenue right-of-way is proposed to be 15 feet, matching the front setback. The applicant will need to receive a right-of- way use license from the City Council in order to utilize part of this undeveloped right-of-way for the driveway. This will protect the City's interests in case the right-of-way was to be opened and will also protect other possible uses for this right-of-way. There are other properties in the general vicinity that use unopened right-of-ways for driveway access. There are two homes that access Ardmore Avenue from an undeveloped portion of the Brook Street right-of-way south of this site. There are also two other homes that access this undeveloped Palm Street right-of-way with private drives to the south and east of this site. If there are concerns that this private user is going to utilize this right-of-way as an extension of their yard, perhaps a fence should be constructed to delineate the private and public areas. Moser Variance Page 3 Staff Review For reviewing a variance request, the Planning Commission must consider the following criteria: (a) A variance shall only be granted when it is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. (b) A variance shall only be granted when it is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (c) A variance may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. Economic considerations alone do not constitute a practical difficulty. In order for a practical difficulty to be established, all of the following criteria shall be met: (1) The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner. In determining if the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, the city shall consider, among other factors, that the variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the practical difficulty and that the variance does not confer on the applicant any special privileges that are denied to the owners of other lands, structures, or buildings in the same district. (2) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. (3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. With strict application of all requisite district standards, there is a very small amount of buildable area (about 400 square feet) on the parcel. The 75 foot setback to Lake Ardmore actually intersects required setback to Ardmore Avenue. It is impossible to build a house and garage meeting the minimum building standards within the buildable area of this parcel. Without some relief from these standards, this legally created parcel would not be allowed any use. The proposed site for the house occupies the south and western corner of the parcel. To the north, the 75 foot lake setback is situated about 25 feet from the right-of-way of Ardmore Avenue. In this location, it is over 40 feet from the Ardmore Avenue right-of-way, as the lake setback line angles from southeast to northwest across the property. Thus, by putting the house in this location, the applicant is placing the house further from this protrusion of the lake setback. The main consideration remaining is whether or not the applicant proposing to put the property to a reasonable use that is within the "essential character" of the neighborhood. In order to determine this, a general survey of the neighborhood (2935 to 2992 Ardmore) was conducted. There are houses ranging in size from a small 682 square foot house at 2955 Ardmore Avenue to a larger 2000+ square foot house with a 1000 square foot garage at 2992 Ardmore. The proposed house would have a building footprint of 1763 square feet with a 96 square foot porch, which lies within the range. In terms of allowing a variance from the minimum riparian lot size of 20,000 square feet to allow Moser Variance Page 4 for a house requiring setback variances, this survey also includes the lot sizes for the other riparian parcels in the immediate area. With 18,520 square feet in area above the OHW, this parcel would be the largest parcel with a home on it on the western side of Lake Ardmore. The house at 2992 Ardmore Avenue is on a parcel of 13,030 square feet in area, 2982 Ardmore is just under 17,625 square feet, and 2972 Ardmore is 13,080 square feet. These parcel sizes do not exclude any property which may be below the OHW, as this information was not readily available. In 2000, the house at 2992 Ardmore Avenue received a similar variance to construct a house 51 feet from the lake and 15.5 feet from the right-of-way. This house and its garage have a larger footprint than is proposed by the applicant. Houses at 2972 and 2982 Ardmore Avenue are about 45 — 50 feet from the lake and about 40 feet from the edge of the road pavement. The applicant's proposes to be located 51 feet from the lake and 34 feet from the pavement. The applicant is proposing to fill the property to raise it to allow for the garage to be of a higher elevation than the road. This will give the property owner the ability to have a two-story walk out, which would be a different than two of the other homes on the lake side of Ardmore Avenue, as they are have similar appearances from the lake as they do the street. The other lakeshore parcels are more flat to the lake than this site, however, and have more a more manicured lawn to the shore while this site has wetlands and vegetation. The house at 2992 Ardmore Avenue also raised the elevation to allow for a walkout. The elevation for the garage floor of that site was raised from 964.79 feet to 971.2, which allowed for a driveway of approximately 5% in grade from the center of the street. RECOMMENDATION The subject site is an impossible property to fit a conforming house on. The lake setback, wetland buffer setback, and the two front yard setbacks create a very small buildable area. This clearly creates a "practical difficulty" in putting this property to a reasonable use. Other properties within the area are developed with similarly sized houses with somewhat similar setbacks. Staff does question the amount of extra fill to raise the height of the area for the house. The applicant contends that this is necessary to keep the garage from being lower than the road and to allow for the desired choice of house style. Staff believes that if a house is going to be constructed on the lot, some amount of fill is reasonable in order to maintain drainage away from the home and also to accommodate drainage from the street, around the home, and to Lake Ardmore. The City Engineer reviewed this plan and stated that this arrangement is generally satisfactory. There are other ways where the house could have been proposed to be situated with an adequate grading plan presented, as well. The goal is to have drainage away from the house in an acceptable manner. However, a similar approach to what the applicant proposes was allowed in a similar variance granted in a nearby location in 2000. As proposed, the applicant's submittal appears to be a generally reasonable use for the property. A recommendation of approval could be given to the Council provided the following conditions are met: Moser Variance Page 5 1. The applicant shall prepare a tree replacement plan. 2. The applicant shall prepare an Upland Buffer Zone vegetation plan. 3. The applicant shall provide a conservation easement over the Upland Buffer Zone. 4. The applicant shall provide drainage and utility easements over the north, south, and westerly 10 feet of the property. 5. The applicant shall provide an additional easement over the wetland and lake areas of the parcel. 6. The grading plan shall be updated so that drainage from the site is directed towards the portions of the Upland Buffer which are wider. 7. All plans and easements shall be provided and accepted by the City prior to the issuance of any building permit on the property. 8 The City Engineer shall approve the grading plan prior to the issuance of any building permit. 9. The applicant must receive an undeveloped right-of-way use license as prepared by the City Attorney for the driveway location. 10. The driveway location shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any building or driveway permit. Attachments: Exhibit A — Neighborhood Property Survey Exhibit B — Survey showing Setback Requirements and Building Envelope w/o Variances Exhibit C - Applicant Narrative Exhibit D — Certificate of Survey — Jacob Moser Exhibit E — Exterior Elevations Exhibit F — Floor Plans Moser Variance Page 6 Exhibit A - Neighborhood Property Survey Photo of property Details from County Records 2935 Ardmore Approx. 1880 sq. ft. building footprint Approx. 55 feet to pavement 2942 Ardmore Approx. 1600 building footprint. Approx. 44 feet to pavement 2945 Ardmore Approx. 1300 sq. ft. building footprint 2 stories Approx. 55 feet to pavement Subject Site Proposed: 1859 sq. ft. building footprint 2 story walkout Approx. 34 feet to pavement 55 feet to OHW Moser Variance Page 7 2955 Ardmore Approx. 700 sq. ft. building footprint Approx. 45 feet to pavement 2971 Ardmore Approx. 1650 sq. ft. building footprint 2 stories Approx. 42 feet to pavement 2972 Ardmore Approx. 2450 sq. ft. building footprint Approx. 40 feet to pavement Approx. 50 feet to OHW Riparian parcel size: 13,080 square feet 2982 Ardmore Approx. 1540 building footprint (house) 572 sq. ft. garage 2 stories Garage appox. 40 feet to pavement House approx. 45 feet to lake Riparian parcel size: 17,625 square feet Moser Variance Page 8 2985 Ardmore Approx. 2100 sq. ft. building footprint Approx. 35 feet to pavement 2992 Ardmore (Received variance in 2000) Approx. 3000 sq. ft building footprint 2 story walkout 51 feet to lake 15.5 to Ardmore right-of-way Approx. 40 feet to pavement Approx. 30% hardcover Riparian parcel size: 13,030 square feet Moser Variance Page 9 8 BO Y_ 12 ELM } t3 SUS tilAP EXHIBIT B 88'4514';': 144 00 or -is r € 1 I: 25' MINIMUM BUFFER _ 0 10 SASSwadp --7 B�Sfb1¢P, MAPLE ' v_ 18 SILVER [ �� 'OSED ELEVA TIONS (VERIFY) 1SEMENT = 964.3 P OF FOUNDATION = 972.1 \RAGE = 969. 8 (ST FLOOR = 973.8 • 1" = 30' 5- 1 , t, 15' BUFFER SETBACK �----1 '. `---- \ ARDMORE 75' LAKE SETBACK • ct,\ C -\ "..•'9ug „• -",;;;-". 0 � ot. s • • rn , N A 12 kL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : NARRATIVE October 4 2012 Dear planning commissioners, Hello my name is Jake Moser and I am requesting set back Variances for the construction of a single family home on my property on Ardmore Ave. The property is a lot of record but has practical difficulties to construct a home without Variances The property has additional set back requirements then a typical lot would have, which include a greater setback from the lake, a wetland setback, a wetland buffer setback, and a setback from the wetland buffer to the home. These setbacks along with standard front and side yard setbacks make this property practically impossible to build on without variances. The enforcement of the City's Zoning Ordinance would not allow me to construct a home on the lot without variances. Practical difficulties exist with the lot that was not created by me as the land owner and I am proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The construction of a modest home, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the area. Please consider my request for variances to construct a new single family home on property on Ardmore Ave. Thank You, Jacob Moser Property Ow CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR JACOB MOSER OF LOTS 9, 10, & 11, BLOCK 21, INDEPENDENCE BEACH HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA /70 Il 8 8O Lr}ER E<p IP o le `'Y \12 ELM m C) m 0 T F-) 0 v .F1O MAPLE .10 BASSWOOD 48-510101 MAPLE 18 SILVER\ PROPOSED ELEVATIONS (VERIFY) 1) BASEMENT = 964.3 2) TOP OF FOUNDATION = 972.1 3) GARAGE = 9fi9.8 4) FIRST FLOOR = 973.8 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES : Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 21, INDEPENDENCE BEACH o denotes iron marker 9 N 88°4414" E 1$9.00 INCREASE IN BUFFER FROM 35 FT. 990+- S.F. (961.5) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum 967.51 : denotes proposed spot elevation denotes existing contour line, mean sea level datum denotes proposed contour line : denotes tree to be removed Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. 35 trees on site, 10 to be removed, 9/35 = 28.6% This survey shows the boundaries of the above described property, existing topography and 100 year flood line thereon, and the proposed location of a proposed house and driveway. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. NOTE: 500 year flood elevation is 962.7 DECREASE IN BUFFER FROM 35 FT. 990+- S.F. W 0 01 CJt PROPOSED HARDCOVER: HOUSE = 1763 SQ.FT PORCH= 96 SQ.FT. DRIVE= 625 SQ.FT. TOTAL= 2484 SQ.FT. 12 2484 / 18520 X 100 = 13.41% HARDCOVER LOT AREA ABOVE OHW= 18520 SQ.FT. REVISED 9-7-12 TREES WITHIN GRADING LIMITS SHOWN REVISED 10-1-12 ADDITIONAL TREEA SHOWN, BUFFER LIMITS REVISED GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, SITE PLANNERS 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct super- vision, and that I am a duly registered Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. SCALE 1"=30' • 8-17-12 DATE 9-7-12 10-1-12 JOB NO. 12-202 A 12-202 A 952-473-4141 Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 jolaiD rrb1 One horse Productions design production performance 888/424-9772 These drawings are design concept only. Responsibility for all information here in is b9 the 11general contractor. Conform to State and Local Codes. Copyright © zo t I John rribyl, Inc_ Front levation 1/1--= Ism it ■iumWM wi ll mltomamos opasin so The original urchascr of the lan, r_ rated p _,isgr� rroect j �pTe a limited nonexclusive and nontransferable license to build one, and only one, structure using this plan. use of this plan • to build more than one home is prohibited. The plan may not reproduced or transferred without the express written Genera SHE!'" permission from the copyright owner.These plans are Contractor OF protected under the Federal Copyright Laws. J j Ri �t r Ievation 1/8" =l' -o" .ear levati A SPHALT S hINGLF_S i sx ASPHALT FELT w ACL SHIELD ST ARTE R vv, 0 513 SHEATHING w/CLIPS PRO VIDE V500 VENT ILA TION 50% SOFFIT Sox RID GE OR ROOF MA NUFACT(JKLK DESIGNED TKU55 W/7 V+ HELL ALUMINUM SOFFIT s FACIA 2 x 6 SLI6 FA CIA VE RIFY EXTE RIOR FINI5 11 hOU5LWRAF 25/52 51LD RITL SHEATHING (OPTIONAL 7/ a 055) 2 X 6 STUDS 16"O .C. 5 1/ 2 5A TT INS LILATIO N R 19.0 (O PTIONAL SPRAY FOAM hOLDRIMJOISTIN 1 1/2" FOR 1 1/2" T LERMAX (SEAL ALL SEA MS) 2 x 6 T REATED SILL PLATE_ w/ S ILL S EALER ANCHO R ST RAPS p= rMFR SPECS ,OPTIONA L 1/2" x 10 " A NCHO R 5OLT5 @ 6'-O" O.C. WATERPROOFING D RAINT ILL o� Tr IT 1/8"= 1'- o" Left rie vation 1/8 "= 1'-0" a3 r c CRoss 5CTON 1/4 "= '- 0" hi +- H-IEa' -rz (- 2-c IC) uNL $ ( r 9 2_69 sdautrim -�-� 3s Sze NV -1 N-Acun o� 14 t ,-C- N cc U) 0 4 a 0 r Art =b1n (11 5 4. 1 = Y-.-Httart szty bvV �f1 \t{ 9360 4 2-1 o 4 Lower Level 1/-"=1'-o" October 7, 2012 To: City of Medina Planning Commission From: Joel C. and Sarah J. Settles Re: Moser Variance Request Public Comments Received Re: Moser Variance This memo contains our comments regarding Mr. Moser's variance requests (PID 18-118-23-24- 0154). We would like these comments entered into the Planning Commission's October 9 Public Hearing as we are unable to attend the meeting due to other commitments. We have lived at our current address, 2892 Ardmore Avenue, in Medina for the past 24 years. We are only one lot removed from the property in question. Our back lot line abuts the ROW for Palm Street. We have reviewed the proposal from Nate Sparks of the Northwest Associated Consultants and request that the Planning Commission consider our concerns and recommendations. Our comments are not intended to deny Mr. Moser the opportunity to build a house on his property. We are aware of the many constraints on this parcel and acknowledge that some variances will be necessary. However, these constraints existed at the time Mr. Moser acquired the property, and we do not support the variances as currently proposed. Our intent is to provide suggestions on how these constraints can be addressed that minimize the number and magnitude of the variances needed, while preserving the character of the neighborhood. Lake Ardmore and the associated wetland are important elements of this character as well as the typical setbacks of the existing houses. We hope the city will work with Mr. Moser to develop an alternative building design or placement that will not require so many concessions from the city and neighborhood. We are particularly concerned about the following issues and their impact on the neighborhood. • The proposed use of Palm Street for a private driveway. • The proposed variance for setback from Ardmore Avenue. • The proposed variance for reduced wetland buffer width and buffer width setback. We make the following recommendations regarding these issues and request that the Planning Commission consider them in their deliberations. • The proposed structure be moved to the north to avoid the need for encroaching on the Palm Street ROW or that the design be changed from a "side loading" to "front loading" garage and driveway. • The proposed structure be set back 40 feet from the pavement edge of Ardmore Avenue. No other houses in the middle of the block are less than 40 feet from the edge of pavement. The requested variance would allow the front of the structure to be approximately 32 feet from the edge of pavement. Our concern regarding the encroachment on the Ardmore ROW is increased by the proposed height of the structure and the amount of fill needed to raise the structure above flood plain elevations and street grade. • The footprint of the structure be changed to accommodate the appropriate front setback while minimizing the encroachment on the buffer width and buffer width setback. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed variance requests. We reiterate that our intent is not to deny Mr. Moser the opportunity to build a house on his property. We hope that the city will work with Mr. Moser to develop an alternative building design or placement that will not require so many concessions from the city and neighborhood. Fredrikson & BYRON, P.A. October 9, 2012 VIA E-MAIL & U.S. MAIL Medina Planning Commission do Dusty Finke City Planner 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE: Variance Application of Jacob Moser (the "Applicant") Dear Commissioners: Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. represents Stacy and Don Brown, 2935 Ardmore Avenue, Medina, who live directly across the street from the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application (the "Application"). We are submitting this letter on behalf of the Browns to be included in the official public record relating to the Application. The Browns are deeply concerned regarding the impacts that the Applicant's proposed home will have upon nearby properties and the neighborhood in general. In particular, the Applicant is seeking permission to materially alter the existing topography of the property and to shoehorn onto his small, substandard lot a house that will not fit well with the balance of the surrounding properties. If approved, the Applicant's home, which will sit closer to the street than any home along Ardmore Avenue, will be an imposing structure that will be out of place amongst the neighboring properties. The Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council not approve the Applicant's current plans for the development of his property. As the City's Consulting Planner has outlined in his report to the Planning Commission, Minnesota law requires that the Planning Commission make several findings before it may determine that there are "practical difficulties" that warrant granting the multiple variances the Applicant seeks for the development of this property. The record does not provide the Planning Commission the factual support needed to make the necessary factual findings. Although there are numerous issues with the current proposal, we will summarize below the most glaring problems with the Applicant's current plans: Attorneys & Advisors main 612.492.7000 fax 612.492.7077 www.fredlaw.corn Fredrikson & Byron, P.A. 200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402-1425 MEMBER OF THE WORLD SERVICES GROUP OFFICES: A Worldwide Network of Professional Service Providers / Minneapolis / Bismarck / Des Moines / Fargo / Monterrey, Mexico / Shanghai Medina Planning Commission October 9, 2012 Page 2 1. The Proposed House Is Not A Reasonable Use Of This Property. The Applicant's proposal to construct a two-story home and a garage with a combined footprint of nearly 1,900 sq. ft. is not a reasonable use of this particular property. The fact that the Applicant is seeking variances on three sides of this property is a clear indication that he is trying to squeeze too much house onto this small parcel. Indeed, the Applicant's request to build closer than allowed to Ardmore Avenue and to build closer than allowed to Lake Ardmore is quite telling in that it shows plainly that this property is just not capable of accommodating a standard residential home and garage. Instead, this property is better suited for a less intense development with a much smaller footprint, such as a smaller residential structure (like a detached townhome) or a cabin. Moreover, it must be noted that the variances the Applicant is seeking are not modest in nature. Rather, the Applicant is seeking dramatic relief from the standard ordinance requirements. The Applicant is seeking to reduce the front and side setbacks each by 50%, the setback from the upland buffer zone by more than 33%, and the setback from Lake Ardmore by nearly 27%. In total, these variances represent a major departure from the types of setbacks required for all properties in the Urban Residential District. Further, we believe it is important to highlight that the Applicant's requested variance to reduce the setback from the upland buffer zone is more dramatic than it appears at first blush. Under Section 823.43, subd. (5) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Applicant is required to have an average wetland buffer of 35 feet, with principal structures set back an additional 15 feet from this buffer. Thus, the Zoning Ordinance anticipates that principal structures, such as the Applicant's home, will be setback an average of 50 feet from nearby wetlands. Here, however, it appears that the Applicant's proposed home will be set back approximately 35 feet from the nearby wetland. The Applicant proposes to provide additional buffer areas at the north and south property lines in an effort to boost the "average" wetland setback, but it should not be overlooked that the great bulk of the Applicant's impervious surface is being located less than 50 feet from the adjacent wetland. The additional buffer areas the Applicant proposes to provide are located almost entirely in areas that are otherwise undevelopable because of setbacks and existing site conditions, so the Applicant is giving little in offering these buffer areas. In short, the Applicant's request for a 5 foot reduction in the setback from the upland buffer zone does not tell the whole story with respect to the true impacts created by this proposal. We understand that the Applicant faces certain challenges in developing the subject property in the manner that the Applicant would prefer. This does not make the Applicant's desires reasonable, however. When considered in light of unique conditions of this parcel, as well as in the context of the surrounding neighborhood, the Planning Commission should find that the Applicant's current proposal is not a reasonable proposal for the development of this property. Medina Planning Commission October 9, 2012 Page 3 2. The Proposed House Will Alter The Essential Character Of The Neighborhood. The Applicant's development plans for the subject property would be detrimental to the character of the existing neighborhood. Initially, the Applicant's proposed house would be located too close to Ardmore Avenue. The nine properties the Consulting Planner surveyed along Ardmore Avenue are set back an average of 44 feet from the pavement of the existing street. The Applicant is proposing to construct his house only 34 feet from the edge of the pavement, however. Moreover, the Applicant's house would be closer to the street than any other home along Ardmore Avenue and, more notably, six feet closer to the street than any other property on the lake side of Ardmore Avenue. Indeed, even the property located at 2992 Ardmore Avenue, which home the Consulting Planner noted received a "similar variance" in 2000, is set back six feet (or nearly 18%) farther from Ardmore Avenue than Applicant's proposed home. Furthermore, the problem the Applicant will create by locating his house too close to Ardmore Avenue will only be exacerbated because the Applicant is seeking to raise significantly the grade on his property. The Applicant is planning to use up to 500 cubic yards of fill to raise the existing grade of the site nearly six feet to create the building pad for the new home. Notably, the Applicant does not need to raise the grade to this degree to build on this property. The Applicant is proposing to do so, though, to allow him sufficient elevation on the site to be able to construct a walk -out basement. As noted in the Consulting Planner's Report, this walk -out feature would be unique to the lake -side properties along Ardmore Avenue. When complete, the Applicant will have converted a naturally low-lying area into a property with a grade higher than that of the existing roadway. The Planning Commission should find that this will not be a positive development for the neighborhood. In addition to the aesthetic concerns raised by the Applicant's plans, the Browns also have serious concerns regarding how the Applicant's proposed development will impact drainage to and in the vicinity of Lake Ardmore. The materials the Applicant has submitted appear to provide virtually no information concerning how the Applicant's proposed development will alter the drainage patterns, rates, and volumes in the vicinity of the property. At a minimum, the Applicant should be required to provide the Planning Commission information to demonstrate that the Applicant's proposed addition of up to 500 cubic yards of fill to the site and major changes to the topography on the property will not impact negatively the Applicant's neighbors or Lake Ardmore. This is not information that the Applicant should be allowed to wait to submit after the Planning Commission has passed on these variance requests — this information is critical to the Planning Commission's complete understanding of the potential impact that this development may have on the surrounding neighborhood and natural features. If the Applicant is allowed to proceed with his current proposal, it appears that the Applicant's house will located be closer to the street and will stand taller than any other home along the lake side of Ardmore Avenue. The Planning Commission should find that the Applicant's proposed Medina Planning Commission October 9, 2012 Page 4 construction of a two-story home on an artificially raised building site, a mere 34 feet from Ardmore Avenue, will alter negatively the existing character of this beautiful neighborhood. 3. The Applicant's "Plight" Does Not Warrant The Extraordinary Relief He Seeks With The Requested Variances. The Applicant purchased the subject property in January 2006. All of the setbacks from which the Applicant now seeks relief were part of the Zoning Ordinance at that time. Thus, the Applicant is not an owner that is experiencing a hardship because of requirements that were imposed upon his property after he acquired the same. Rather, the Applicant was on notice that this property would difficult to develop before he ever closed on his purchase of this property. Interestingly, it appears that the Applicant was actually the beneficiary of the impact of the zoning ordinance's setback requirements on the property. Records on file with Hennepin County indicate that the Applicant paid $40,000 for this property in January 2006, which price is significantly below the amount owners typically would have demanded and received for a lakefront residential lot in 2006. The only logical conclusion from these facts is that the prior owner of this property knew that the options for developing this property were limited and, as a result, asked for and accepted a price that reflected what could be done with the property. The Applicant is now seeking permission to do significantly more with this property than was ever before believed possible. These circumstances do not present a "plight" that justify the City providing the Applicant substantial relief from the ordinance's standard requirements. 4. The Applicant Should Not Be Allowed To Cover More Than 25% Of His Lot With Impervious Surface. In addition to the four variances that are discussed in the Consulting Planner's Report, it appears that the Applicant's current proposal may require a fifth variance. Based upon the information the Applicant has furnished to the City, it appears that the Applicant may be proposing to cover with impervious surface more than 25% of the lot area, which would require an additional variance from the City. The City should investigate this further to determine whether an additional- variance is needed. Section 827.06, subd. (c) of the Zoning Ordinance, which applies to all lots in the Shoreland Overlay District (which includes the subject property), states that the "maximum lot area covered by impervious surface shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent." Section 825.05, subd. 55 of the Zoning Ordinance, in turn, defines "Lot Area" as the area of a property located within its lot lines, excluding areas within a floodplain or areas occupied by wetlands. Thus, to complete the 25% calculation, the City must first determine the amount of "lot area" that is not wetland and that is outside of the floodplain. Medina Planning Commission October 9, 2012 Page 5 The Applicant has furnished the City the square footage for the portion of the lot that is above the ordinary high water mark (18,520 sq. ft.), but the Applicant has failed to provide the City the area of his lot that is not wetland and that is outside the floodplain. From reviewing the Applicant's plans, it appears that the Applicant's "lot area," when calculated properly pursuant to Section 825.05, subd. 55, is several thousand square feet less than 18,520 sq. ft. The Applicant should be required to furnish revised calculations to the City so that a determination may be made regarding whether an additional variance is needed. Additionally, for purposes of the 25% calculation, it must be noted that the Applicant has excluded from his calculation the portion of his driveway that will be constructed on City right- of-way. From reviewing the Applicant's plans, it appears there are several hundred square feet of additional impervious area that the Applicant will be constructing in the Palm Street right-of- way for his personal driveway. Obviously, if the Applicant was submitting a typical proposal in which his personal driveway was located on his property, the Applicant would need to include the square footage of his driveway in his impervious surface calculations. Because the additional impervious surface required for this driveway presents the same concerns to the nearby wetland and lake regardless of whether this is technically on the Applicant's property or in City right-of- way, the City should not ignore this impervious area and should include this area in the 25% calculations. In conclusion, the Browns respect and understand the Applicant's desire to make use of his property. The Browns' do not believe, though, that the Applicant's current plan to construct a standard -sized home and garage is appropriate for this small lot. The current plan simply is not reasonable for this substandard lot, nor is it sensitive to the impacts that such development will have on the existing neighborhood. The Planning Commission should recognize that the Applicant's proposed house just doesn't work on this property and should recommend that the City Council not approve the Applicant's current plans. Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration of this matter. Regards, Brian S. McCool Direct Dial: 612.492.7309 Email: bmccool@fredlaw.com BSM:djk cc: Stacy and Don Brown — Via E -Mail Ronald Batty, Esq. — Via E -Mail 5243057_2.DOC Terry and Kathryn Richmond 2900 County Road 19 Maple Pain, MN 55559 *765.+79.15 1 8 To: City of Medina Planning Commission Re: Moser Variance Request October 9, 2012 We'd like to enter the following comments into the Planning Commission's October 9 Public Hearing regarding Mr. Moser's variance requests (PID 18-118-23-24-0154). We will try to get to the meeting if we can, but have work commitments that will run until after 8PM. Our family has lived in Medina for the past 30 years at our current address: 2900 County Road 19 — across Lake Ardmore from the Moser property. We've had a chance to look at the proposal from Nate Sparks of the Northwest Associated Consultants and request that the Planning Commission consider our thoughts and recommendations We recognize the challenges facing Mr. Moser to build upon the lot on Ardmore Avenue and realize that to build even a modest home upon that site would need some variances. We are sympathetic to the limitations of the lot but also expect that most of those limitations already existed when the parcel was purchased. Our intent is not to provide a barrier to Mr. Moser to build a home on his lot, however, we are not supportive of granting the variances as they were requested. Perhaps there is an alternative building design or placement that would not require so many building and zoning compromises on the part of the city. We are particularly concerned about 3 things in this order: • Preserving and protecting the quality of the lake and the wetland ecosystem • Maintaining the essential character of the neighborhood • Ensuring that the use of the easement on Palm Street is considered carefully These are our specific recommendations. Details and explanations follow. • We urge the City to ensure that whatever is built upon this site is developed and maintained in such a way that neither the water quality nor the ecosystems of the wetlands or the lake are compromised. • Please maintain a 35 -foot average wetland buffer as required by Medina's Wetland ordinance (do not accept the assumption in the proposal that the 25 -foot minimum is their starting point). And please do not reduce the upland buffer set back to less than 10 feet. • Please consider requiring rain gardens along the wetland buffer. • Please keep the placement of the home front no closer to the road pavement than the 40-45 feet home -front -to -road -edge of the existing homes along the east side of Ardmore Avenue. • Consider alternatives to encroachment on the easement. Moser Variance — Richmond's Comments Detailed Comments 1. Lake and Wetland quality The quality of Lake Ardmore is extremely important to us — as I expect it is to all of the lake front home owners and nearby residents. It is important to the wildlife habitat that it supports. As long-term residents, we know that this lake is on a migration path for many birds and is a nesting site for several kinds of ducks and other wildlife. It is also important to the quality of Lake Independence as it is linked to the larger lake via the creek on the south end of the lake. This lot is a low lying parcel adjacent to the wetlands and at the mouth of the creek. Buffers and Buffer Set -back. Wetland buffers and set -backs have been established by the city as protections for wetland ecosystems. This proposal appears to compromise both the buffers and the set -backs. The building placement does not seem to meet the intent of Section 828.434 and we are concerned about potential impact on the Lake Ardmore wetland. • The buffer regulations require a 35 foot average buffer to the wetlands — with no part of the buffer to be less than 25 feet. In the sketch of the parcel within the report, the buffer is delineated consistently at 25 feet along more than half the proposed building site - not an "average" of 35 feet. • We strongly encourage the city to not compromise these requirements and to require that the buffer be maintained at 35 feet for most of the property and that the 25 feet minimum be the exception — not along the majority of the building site. • The variance request to reduce the buffer set back from 15 feet to 10 seems reasonable IF the buffer line is at 35 feet but not if the buffer line is being calculated at 25 feet. Please remember that once a building is in place, there is landscaping, walkways, etc. that radiate out from the building that will be on the wetland side of whatever setback line is selected. Potential Impact on Water Quality. We don't know how the selected placement of the home, raising the driveway above grade, or the addition of the extra fill to the site (4-500 cubic yards!) could potentially contribute to changes in drainage pathways or cause unhealthy run-off or leaching of silt into the lake. • We are concerned about the significant amount of fill proposed for this home. • We ask that the city ensure that the final approved proposal incorporate protections to the lake and water quality during the building process and after the home is completed — including consideration of adding rain gardens at the wetland buffer mark. 2. Impact on the Character of the Neighborhood We recommend that the home front be no closer to the road pavement than the fronts of the existing homes along the east side of Ardmore Avenue (40-45 feet from home front to road edge). • We are concerned that the 15 foot variance from the road set back would place the house closer to the pavement than the nearly all of the other homes on that portion of Ardmore Avenue — and would change the character and feel of this part of our neighborhood — particularly with a home of this height. • According to the staff report, the four other houses on the east side of Ardmore Avenue are approximately 44, 40, 45 and 40 feet from the pavement respectively - - including the house at 2992 cited by the proposal. Across the street, the five houses cited are 55, 55, 45, 42 and 35 feet from the pavement respectively. • The one house set 35 feet off the pavement — and the larger house at 2992 are both at the dead end of Ardmore - not along the driving or walking route through this part of the neighborhood — and both are bordered on the north by green space and wetlands. 3. Easement on Palm Street It is unclear why the home cannot be moved a bit north on the property to avoid encroachment on the Palm Street easement. Once placed, this home will need permanent access over the easement. • We encourage the city to be thoughtful and fair about providing equal opportunity to other property owners along the Palm Street easement before deciding to give special use to only one of the adjacent property owners. • It appears unlikely that the city will pave a road along Palm Street. Perhaps it is time to consider vacating the easement and offer it equitably to those owners along its path. • IF part of the easement is to be paved to accommodate the Moser driveway, use of the easement or access to the lake by other local residents should be maintained. Thank you for your consideration, Terry and Kathryn Richmond c.,„. ,,, Comment Card Public Forum Agenda Item MEDINA ^ Name of Speaker: a v Q. A,0.3 k 6 b (p ease print) (...6 Address: rj ( ()?.� � Telephone (optional): Representing: Agenda Item (list number and letter): �- Comments: � 5 hal\)1 id 1)7/11S I" A- `)(04(., Approach the podium to speak Meeting Rules of Conduct MEDINA • Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner. • Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments. • Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to speak when it is your turn. • Please approach the podium when called on to speak. While Speaking Please give name and address Please indicate if representing a group Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes G, T V o a Comment Card MEDINA Name of Speaker: r--.,^ .� Public Forum Agenda Item C .) (please print) Address: C,At- � Mcc:, j r. Telephone (optional): (,\*.- `"1 ) .9_e\ Representing: vS\�.t_ N, '1 .,.vN Agenda Item (list number and letter): 4c ,---- Comments: Approach the podium to speak I Meeting Rules of Conduct MEDINA • Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner. • Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments. • Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to speak when it is your turn. • Please approach the podium when called on to speak. While Speaking Please give name and address Please indicate if representing a group Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes G C 7 V Comment Card Public Forum-+„•__— Agenda Item /1 MEDINA ,---'"' p Name of SpeakerJ/ 1 LEV/722A1214 , Address: A7WWRE -AVE. Telephone (optional): NE6w,'� � Representing: ARDfrk1/? 4 1C/F Agenda Item (list number and letter): 1' ' / VARIA/JCkS Comments: Approach the podium to speak Meeting Rules of Conduct MEDINA • Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner. • Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments. • Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to speak when it is your turn. • Please approach the podium when called on to speak. While Speaking Please give name and address Please indicate if representing a group Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes T Y o c; �� Comment Card Public Forum Agenda Item MEDINA Name of Speaker: c o Jr\ `T leas rint) Address: rj ('1 \ 6( k— " Telephone (optional): 1 („5 - C1 - \ 1 ( 3 Representing: Agenda Item (list number and letter): Comments: Approach the podium to speak Meeting Rules of Conduct MEDINA • Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner. • Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments. • Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to speak when it is your turn. • Please approach the podium when called on to speak. While Speaking Please give name and address Please indicate if representing a group Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes G% T Y o f Comment Card Public Forum Agenda Item MEDINA Name of Speaker: AY-Idq S o i LI �-e-please (" print) Address: 2,4314 2, Pn-d.►nove k vv iNclirta ► its) SS&5 cl i Telephone (optional): 612 - 328- 18 Y3 Representing: Sc I -F Agenda Item (list number and letter): Comments: Approach the podium to speak Meeting Rules of Conduct MEDINA • Please indicate if comment card is for the Public Forum or an Agenda Item in upper right hand corner. • Please fill out card and provide a brief summary of comments. • Please turn in the card to a staff member who will pass the card to the Mayor. The Mayor will call on you to speak when it is your turn. • Please approach the podium when called on to speak. While Speaking Please give name and address Please indicate if representing a group Please limit remarks to 3 to 5 minutes